APM98

Im not sure why this dual-core is so inexpensive? Is it because the low bus speeds?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116001

fade2green514

because its underclocked a ton "2.66GHz"
yes, thats slower than the slowest single core processor out there. basically its the worst gaming processor you can get. only get it if you are doing processor intensive apps... probly o/cs some but its still 90nm so not too much :-\
basically an athlon 64 at 1.8ghz is better than that, by a long shot.
orrr... a P4 3.0ghz

__________________

Core 2 Q6600 @ 3016mhz
Radeon HD 4850 512mb
2x2gb G.Skill ddr2-835
2x80gb WD 8mb sata2 in RAID 0 system drive
12,936 - 3dmark06 score

apj101

because it under clock from what? that's its stock speed

What! - 2.66ghz is slower than the slowest single core processor, hmmm I have a PIC16F84 microcontroller running on an extranal 4mhz crystal sitting right next to me, it's running my pin-driven power switch. Lest i point out that 4mhz < 2.66ghz

Dont be rediculous, in the mass market there are probably somewhere near 1000 different cpus available, of which probably 100 can beat the 805 in a gaming rig, i recon that puts it in the top 10%.
I see the point your trying to make, and agree that there are better gaming chips available (although a slightly different price:performance points). But lets not talk crap

gaming does count as processor intensive, just less so than say audio/video encoding.

you say that as though 90nm is antiquated, most chips still run on 90nm cores (agreed the new core duo and preslers/cedars are 65nm), and lest i point out no 65nm cores are made by AMD. Also the die package size wont impact too much on your ocing ability: which by the way is substantially more that "not too much"

I assume you mean the 3000+, few refer to clock speed with amd.
Why are we assuming he is gaming, lets choose something more intel freindly say multi pass divx encoding: the D805 will run circles around the amd64 3000+.
In gaming, the 3000+ may have an edge, probably widened by the lower bandwidth of the D805 through 133fsb (i dont have any benchies on it to hand), but with a little game engine optimisation that picture could change

Given the price of this dual core they are very good for budget systems, and if i had the choice i know what i would pick, 805 all the way

*sigh*

fade2green514

from its other pentium D counterparts
that they manufacture!
pentium 4 cores (yes, two) at 2.66ghz = less fps than athlon 64 CHIP at 1.8ghz
yes, but most games don't use both athlon64 cores on my computer, and frequency matters more in most cases (for games)
most newer intel chips ARE on 65nm so id suggest a newer one, that's what i meant! (more o/cability = more value out of your processor!)
yes, but divx encoding only takes so long, gaming is a constant process... you can "set it and forget it" while divx encoding
the 3000+ would massacre a pentium D at 2.66ghz in gaming--guaranteed
lol i guess if you're a cheapskate... oh well, personally id get the lowest clocked 65nm they have and o/c it a ton...
cant wait till conroe comes out

__________________

Core 2 Q6600 @ 3016mhz
Radeon HD 4850 512mb
2x2gb G.Skill ddr2-835
2x80gb WD 8mb sata2 in RAID 0 system drive
12,936 - 3dmark06 score

apj101

well the range has to start somewhere

what about the p4 505, or the p4 506.
or if we move onto the celeron range anything under the 330 all clock under 2.66ghz
And all are currently being manufactured

care to post some respectable source benchies, so we can see the difference
and lets not forget, no-one said he was gaming

are we now comparing the 805 to the 3800x2? if so be sure to adjust results for the 50% price difference

If this was the case then your changing your argument postion, if mhz is the only factor in gaming performance as per this statement then intel would be gaming kings, which i;m sure we both agree is not the case


true, but you;ll have to sit and forget a lot longer with a non x2 amd in you box, lol
plus for some folk this time is critical!

real world benchies?

typo on my part, meant to say 90nm. I have edited my post

arn;t we all cheapskates, we all want the best bang for buck.
Also note that overclocking reports for the 805 are very good, with some folk approaching 3.9 ghz on air.

fade2green514

dude i REALLY dont have time for this lol... all's im saying is that the chip was priced rightfully because its not that high of performance.

__________________

Core 2 Q6600 @ 3016mhz
Radeon HD 4850 512mb
2x2gb G.Skill ddr2-835
2x80gb WD 8mb sata2 in RAID 0 system drive
12,936 - 3dmark06 score

fade2green514

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...2=248&chart=68
as you see, the Pentium D one step UP from the one we are talking about... at 2.8ghz performs about 32.1 FPS LESS than th athlon 64 3000+ clocked at 1.8ghz. OWNED
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...2=248&chart=71
performed worse by 25 or so fps in UT2004
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...2=248&chart=51
about 15fps in wolfenstein
its funny because the sempron 2600+ seems to be in the same area for gaming... how much does it cost? alot less. even the sempron 3000+ would be a better choice for gaming.
ANY Athlon 64 would school that chip in gaming
though it takes the Athlon 64 like... 2-3 minutes longer for encoding and such... oh well "set it and forget it"
of course, i have A64 X2 so i don't need to worry about performance in either area yay lol

__________________

Core 2 Q6600 @ 3016mhz
Radeon HD 4850 512mb
2x2gb G.Skill ddr2-835
2x80gb WD 8mb sata2 in RAID 0 system drive
12,936 - 3dmark06 score

Lax

Yeah and you'll notice the difference of 15-30 when the constant FPS is greater than 100FPS 100% of the time.

__________________
He who controls the present controls the past.
He who controls the past, controls the future.

Dr Studly

wow...wow... wow!
to people just assume that everyone is gaming??? did the guy say he was gaming? no. he was just asing why it was so cheap.
and btw, my dad just got a Pentium D 820 and it is a very good processor. I am sure the 805 would be comparable if you OCed it a bit. And the 805 is far from the worst gaming processor there is! Im sure the Athlon 3000+ would be better on most games now but not on games that can utilize both cores (future games and quake 4...) so for gaming i would get a dual-core if i want to play future games... even if it is an intel.
The Pentium D's get so much badstuff said about them. They are very fine processors besides how hot they get (they all idle around 50C). My dad has a Pentium D 820 2.8GHz/2gb ram/ATA100 7200RPM 120GBharddrive and his computer boots up in 15 seconds they are very strong processors. He can multi-task and do everything he needs fine. Sure BF2 won't work and games like that, but if he had a better grfx card, Quake 4, COD2, future "dual-core-utilizing-games" would be great on it, because of the dual-core. Pentium D's make great budget Dual-Core systems.

andy5667

Well done that man! Very well put and said.